They are groups that have broken communion (gone into schism) with the Orthodox Church over what they perceive as doctrinal differences--and to the extent that they perceive a doctrinal difference between themselves and the Orthodox Church, no, I cannot say the profess the 'same faith.'

Do you consider the calendar to be a doctrinal issue?

No, I don't. Which is why I remain in the Orthodox Church and do not join a schism which does consider it a doctrinal issue.

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

I'm not a theologian or an expert in this area, but here are my impressions regarding your inquiry. The doctrine of the Orthodox Church comes from the 7 Ecumenical Synods (Councils). The doctrinal statements of these synods became required for the faithfull to believe in order to achieve salvation, once they are accepted by the clergy and faithful of the church, (actually, not rejected), and are considered infallible when ratified by the subsequent synod.

Pronouncements such as the local synodal statements you've identified (they were not conferences of all the hierarchy of the church), have standing for those under the immediate protection of the synods which were represented and took the position, along with other synods which accept the position. The common acceptance of the greater Church, renders positions such as these, something that is considered required to be followed. But still, it is not doctrine. Thus, a subsequent synod can take a modified position.

I would guess that the Churches which follow what we call the "new calendar," would respond to your question by indicating that they are not in non-compliance with these statements because they adopted a Revised Julian Calendar, not the Gregorian Calendar. A Pan Orthodox Congress of a few representatives of each of the Holy Orthodox Churches which attended (at which only the First Throne among the Ancient Patriarchates was represented, as the convener), recommended to the Holy Orthodox Churches the adoption of a Revised Julian Calendar. The Synods of the Churches of Greece, Constantinople, Cyprus, Romania, Alexandria, Antioch, and Bulgaria, eventually adopted the Revised Julian Calendar, while retaining the Julian Calendar for the computation of the Pascal cycle, (except for the Church of Finland which has been given an exception by Economy). The Churches of Jerusalem, Russia, and Serbia, have not changed from the traditional use of the Julian Calendar. Another complication, Churches which use the Revised Julian Calendar may allow eparchies under them use of the Julian Calendar, the Holy Mountain, Mt. Athos, which is under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, being a significant example of that situation.

I would suggest that the Calendar that was used by the First Ecumenical Synod to establish a uniform day for the celebration of Pascha, was not a doctrinal adoption of that calendar; however, the Old Calendarist Churches which are separated from the Holy Orthodox Churches, would submit that the Julian Calendar became the Church Calendar, sanctified by its use.

There could be much more said about this matter, (there is another thread on the calendars on this forum), the primary problem obviously being, that the Church as a whole did not reach a consensus on a pan-Orthodox basis, when the government of Greece coerced the Church of Greece to adopt the new calendar, which pushed the Ecumenical Patriarchate to accordingly change too. So, for the last 85 years, "some fast while others feast" within Orthodoxy (except for the Great Lent/Paschal cycle), also resulting in the phenomenon of separated churches, often referred to as Old Calendar jurisdictions.

Without a slightest intention to defend the idea that we share the same faith with the Eastern Rite Catholic Church, I would like, merely for the sake of accuracy, say that to say or not to say Filioque indeed depends on a particular parish. In the Ukrainian Greek Catholic parish that I visited when I lived in Seattle, the priest DID say "vid Otcya I SYNA (Filioque) izkhodyt'." On the other hand, a Ukrainian Greek Catholic priest who is my virtual acquaintance from the Maidan web site says that he NEVER proclaimed Filioque even once over the 5 or so years he has been serving as a parish priest, and his higher-ups know it and do not object.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

They are groups that have broken communion (gone into schism) with the Orthodox Church over what they perceive as doctrinal differences--and to the extent that they perceive a doctrinal difference between themselves and the Orthodox Church, no, I cannot say the profess the 'same faith.'

Do you consider the calendar to be a doctrinal issue?

No, I don't. Which is why I remain in the Orthodox Church and do not join a schism which does consider it a doctrinal issue.

Again, not to say that we share the same faith with Eastern Rite Catholics, but merely for the sake of accuracy: in the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, calendar is, apparently, NOT a doctrinal issue, because some UGCC parishes are on the old calendar and some on new.

These will help you understand the Eastern Catholic positions and pretty much my position right now.

I understand the Eastern Catholic positions; I was raised in the Roman church and attended a Greek Catholic church for almost a decade before realizing that I do not and cannot hold to the universal supremacy and jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome as espoused by the Vatican. Without that one belief, my reason for staying in the Catholic communion was gone. I have come to realize that the filioque is also, at best, dangerous, and, at worst, heresy.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

Do I really care right now about the Latin Church. I care about being a Byzantine Christian.

"Byzantine" is a western tag. False unions brought on by military trickery and greedy leaders hardly constitute the authentic spiritual heritage of New Rome. I do not doubt the personal faith of those Slavs of the unia, but nothing about their history or formation is an authentic product of an Orthodox ethos.

An exception would maybe be the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, as their union with Rome was their own choice, it was not forced on them from the outside in a deceptive way.

Byzantine is not a Western Tag!. "Byzantium"

The only "Byzantines" who called themselves "Byzantine" are those who submitted to the Vatican.

Copt it the Egyptian word for Egyptian. In Coptic, the native word "Rem'nkhemi" means "man-of-Egypt."

Quote

What do you feel about the Melkites?.

What about the Melkites? They are basically the ones who didn't submit to the Vatican at her sword point. Many are equally indifferent to Old and New Rome. A pox on both their houses.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Without a slightest intention to defend the idea that we share the same faith with the Eastern Rite Catholic Church, I would like, merely for the sake of accuracy, say that to say or not to say Filioque indeed depends on a particular parish. In the Ukrainian Greek Catholic parish that I visited when I lived in Seattle, the priest DID say "vid Otcya I SYNA (Filioque) izkhodyt'." On the other hand, a Ukrainian Greek Catholic priest who is my virtual acquaintance from the Maidan web site says that he NEVER proclaimed Filioque even once over the 5 or so years he has been serving as a parish priest, and his higher-ups know it and do not object.

So much for theologically uniformity amongst Rome and her automous sui juris churches! And now Cardinal Husar is offering the same type of theological inconsistency to his Ukraiian Orhodox brother and sisters and expects them to buy into it!

Orthodoc

Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.

I'm not a theologian or an expert in this area, but here are my impressions regarding your inquiry. The doctrine of the Orthodox Church comes from the 7 Ecumenical Synods (Councils). The doctrinal statements of these synods became required for the faithfull to believe in order to achieve salvation, once they are accepted by the clergy and faithful of the church, (actually, not rejected), and are considered infallible when ratified by the subsequent synod.

Pronouncements such as the local synodal statements you've identified (they were not conferences of all the hierarchy of the church), have standing for those under the immediate protection of the synods which were represented and took the position, along with other synods which accept the position. The common acceptance of the greater Church, renders positions such as these, something that is considered required to be followed. But still, it is not doctrine. Thus, a subsequent synod can take a modified position.

I would guess that the Churches which follow what we call the "new calendar," would respond to your question by indicating that they are not in non-compliance with these statements because they adopted a Revised Julian Calendar, not the Gregorian Calendar. A Pan Orthodox Congress of a few representatives of each of the Holy Orthodox Churches which attended (at which only the First Throne among the Ancient Patriarchates was represented, as the convener), recommended to the Holy Orthodox Churches the adoption of a Revised Julian Calendar. The Synods of the Churches of Greece, Constantinople, Cyprus, Romania, Alexandria, Antioch, and Bulgaria, eventually adopted the Revised Julian Calendar, while retaining the Julian Calendar for the computation of the Pascal cycle, (except for the Church of Finland which has been given an exception by Economy). The Churches of Jerusalem, Russia, and Serbia, have not changed from the traditional use of the Julian Calendar. Another complication, Churches which use the Revised Julian Calendar may allow eparchies under them use of the Julian Calendar, the Holy Mountain, Mt. Athos, which is under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, being a significant example of that situation.

I would suggest that the Calendar that was used by the First Ecumenical Synod to establish a uniform day for the celebration of Pascha, was not a doctrinal adoption of that calendar; however, the Old Calendarist Churches which are separated from the Holy Orthodox Churches, would submit that the Julian Calendar became the Church Calendar, sanctified by its use.

There could be much more said about this matter, (there is another thread on the calendars on this forum), the primary problem obviously being, that the Church as a whole did not reach a consensus on a pan-Orthodox basis, when the government of Greece coerced the Church of Greece to adopt the new calendar, which pushed the Ecumenical Patriarchate to accordingly change too. So, for the last 85 years, "some fast while others feast" within Orthodoxy (except for the Great Lent/Paschal cycle), also resulting in the phenomenon of separated churches, often referred to as Old Calendar jurisdictions.

OK. Thanks for taking the time. But there is a question, because the Orthodox Church of Finland uses the condemned Gregorian calendar.

I do not know an ecclesiastically based answer to your question. I'm sure the Ecumenical Patriarchate has one. The practical answer has something to do with civil laws in Finland, though I can't recall the specifics.

Without a slightest intention to defend the idea that we share the same faith with the Eastern Rite Catholic Church, I would like, merely for the sake of accuracy, say that to say or not to say Filioque indeed depends on a particular parish. In the Ukrainian Greek Catholic parish that I visited when I lived in Seattle, the priest DID say "vid Otcya I SYNA (Filioque) izkhodyt'." On the other hand, a Ukrainian Greek Catholic priest who is my virtual acquaintance from the Maidan web site says that he NEVER proclaimed Filioque even once over the 5 or so years he has been serving as a parish priest, and his higher-ups know it and do not object.

So much for theologically uniformity amongst Rome and her automous sui juris churches! And now Cardinal Husar is offering the same type of theological inconsistency to his Ukraiian Orhodox brother and sisters and expects them to buy into it!

Orthodoc

Yes, that's what he seems to be doing, facing the onslaught of atheism on the one front and "Sergianism" ("PutinoEurasiomonarchism" disguised as "Orthodoxy") on the other...

Yes, that's what he seems to be doing, facing the onslaught of atheism on the one front and "Sergianism" ("PutinoEurasiomonarchism" disguised as "Orthodoxy") on the other...

That is the first time I have heard something like this. Is it common among Ukrainians to say Putino-Eurasiomonarchism?

Politics, politics, politics! What a shame it is when were justify putting Christ and his teachings (doctrines) on the mat outside the church in favor of political hatred. That's a new one George. Never heard it before.

Orthodoc

Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.

Kiev, December 30, Interfax – Head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church Lubomyr Cardinal Husar said he was ready to leave his post, but did not name the successor as such decision was not in his competence.

“I’m not immortal. It seems I’d better delegate my authority now, quietly, so that work can go on. The Church is living and no one is indispensable. Our Church has greatly progressed for the recent fourteen years, but a long way to complete organization is still in store for us,” the UGCC head told journalists at Lvov press conference on Tuesday.

Husar stressed it was not up to him to decide who would succeed him as this question in the Synod competence, “Such things are done calmly without any super emotions. I don’t have exact date, it’s a kind of process.”

Husar has been the UGCC leader from January 2001. He was the first head of this Church elected in independent Ukraine.

===================

Orthodoc

Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.

It's an idea that is floated also among the Melkites. It goes nowhere, nor should it.[/quote]

I have heard this also though I thought the idea was floated back in the Balamand Agreement days and killed because of it. I have also heard that there is a new move towards an "adjustment" in the relations between the Melkites and the Maronites and Rome to reflect certain "new realities". Any truth to that?

Seems to me that most of you are looking more into the politics of the church than the faith by your replies. Even if the Pope were to profess his faith in Orthodoxy than you would all still find an excuse not to be in communion with Rome. In the world we live in today we need to be more united than ever. Islam and Secularism are the enemies. Not Pope vs Patriarch, or Orthodoxy vs Catholicism. If we keep on stereo typing each other and more people become Muslims or Atheists, than there will be no more Orthodoxy or Catholicism. We will be the past. Both sides!. Look at Turkey. Do you all really think the Patriarch of Constantinople is worried about Orthodoxy vs Catholicism. When the Muslims are doing all they can to exterminate what is left of Christianity from Turkey. Do you think the Pope is, after Obama is thinking of making Abortion legal nation wide. And most of Europe is Atheist. For me what is important is the faith and my giving glory to God. I look at myself as a Byzantine Christian. I could care less one bit if it's unity with Rome or Constantinople or Moscow. I care more about the Byzantine faith vs Church politics.

I have to agree that this bickering between Catholics and Orthodox does not help in the fight against atheism and secularism in the world today. On the other hand, the differences between the two Churches are pretty serious and neither side wants to budge.

Honestly, not compromising with the heresies of Rome is more important than political victories.

Why can't I receive communion in both an Eastern Orthodox Church and an Eastern Catholic Church.

Because the EO understands the issue better than you do and realize that you must not be Communed until your explicitly profess the EO faith and reject the Communion of those who teach divergent faiths, such as the Romanists.

I find it rather ironic that it is a Ukrainian Catholic who is making this suggestion, given that they are the last group of the four that the other three would unite with, given that the other three recognize that they have doctrinal issues with the UGCC that they don't with each other. How confused this man is.